High Stakes in Matters Of Censorship, Morality, And Educational Values

Censorship is the hottest issue to hit the schools this year.
Spirited debates about the sanitizing of school plays, the selection of
library books, and the adoption of class reading lists are rebounding
from the Virginia Tidelands to the Seattle suburbs.

The central protagonists in this fight tend to present rather narrow
arguments. One side proclaims, "Save all the books;" the other side
insists, "Protect our innocent children." Somewhere in between lies a
more rational position, one that educators can defend.

Academic freedom certainly plays an important part in our
educational system. But attention to ethics and morality enjoys a long
tradition in schools as well. Despite the apprehension of many
educators about teaching morality, the belief that moral values should
be taught goes back to our national origins. Thomas Jefferson fervently
hoped that education would fortify the citizens of the new Republic
with "moral honesty." This idea of education persists. The most recent
Gallup Poll on education reports that 84 percent of the parents of
public-school children favor instruction in morals and moral
behavior.

Confronting the public schools is not the question of whether to
teach morality, but the problem of how. They need to find a middle
ground between denying sectarian religious instruction on the one hand
and avoiding complete moral relativism on the other. This middle ground
varies considerably from community to community, of course, but parents
will always resent schools that undermine the system of values taught
at home. No school should deliberately destroy those values.

Concerns about academic freedom enter at this point. Such freedom,
along with ethics and morality, is a part of our system of education.
However, no right of absolute academic freedom exists in the public
schools. States set graduation requirements and approve certain
textbooks for adoption. School districts establish programs of
study--with prescribed scope and sequence and reading materials--upon
the approval of the school board. Academic choice, in fact, may be
narrowed at every stop along the line from the state textbook
commission to the local department chairman.

Some educators argue that books and lesson plans are matters to be
determined solely by professional judgment. Although parents ordinarily
accept this position in the case of mathematics, they are far less
willing to accept it where literature or drama is concerned. And if
society willingly accepts "R" ratings for films, thus restricting the
viewing of them by young people, how can we scream "censorship" when
similar criteria are applied to school books? Most citizens simply do
not accept the infallibility of teachers on matters of morality or
values.

That there is reason for this is substantiated by a recent
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance study about American values in the
1980's. The study reports that educators' views on certain moral issues
are significantly different from those of the "general public." For
example, the Connecticut Mutual survey found that only 62 percent of
educators opposed adultery, while 85 percent of the general public said
it was wrong. Fewer than half of the educators--45 percent--said that
having sexual relations before age 16 was wrong, while 71 percent of
the general public believed it was wrong. Although 30 percent of the
educators polled said using marijuana was bad, 57 percent of the
general public objected to its use. Similar differences were reported
on other "values questions."

Obviously, a serious "values gap" exists, at least in many
communities. Parents and teachers must acknowledge these possible
differences in viewpoint and work them out. Parents as well as English
teachers have rights. What is considered "acceptable" by a Mormon town
in Utah may be quite different from what is tolerated in a Jewish
suburb of New York City. Similarly, the solid Baptists of South
Carolina probably possess a view of morality not entirely shared by the
nominal Protestants of Palo Alto, Calif.

Certainly it is consistent with good educational practice to review
educational materials periodically, including magazines and books in
the school library. Unless you believe that books, once shelved, have
thereby gained an irrevocable tenure, such actions do not constitute
censorship despite the protestations of some librarians and the
American Civil Liberties Union. It is reasonable educational policy to
protect the legitimate interests of all who are concerned about the
development of young men and women.

Reviews of books and materials also recognize the long tradition of
moral education in schools, as well as a rational approach to finding a
compromise between what a teacher may view as educationally valuable
and what a citizen may view as destructive of family values. Both are
protected rights, but neither is an absolute right. The issues are
negotiable. Little is gained by waving the red flag of censorship.

Does all this mean that school officials should remove books or ban
plays following every citizen complaint? Absolutely not! Parents should
no more have the right to a unilateral and uncontested veto than has a
teacher or librarian the right to a unilateral and uncontested
selection of any available book or magazine for students.

Fortunately a way out of the dilemma exists. Fortunately, also, the
way out does not involve the courts, because already their intrusion
upon the curriculum is excessive.

Every school board should establish formal procedures for reviewing
controversial materials. A standing committee of educators and laymen,
appointed by the board and working together, can be invaluable to a
community. This committee should operate within a materials-selection
policy established by the board of education, which specifies the
local criteria to be applied and the procedures for selecting materials
for the school library, for courses of study, and for extracurricular
activities such as dramatic productions. The policy should provide
procedures for reviewing challenged materials as well. This approach
has been recommended by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development and the American Library Association, among other education
groups.

Far too many communities fail to maintain appropriate policies and
procedures on these issues. Where a void exists, interested citizens
and educators should initiate their development in conjunction with the
school board. Such steps must be taken to prevent a flurry of demands
from any single source that could damage the legitimate interests of
all concerned.

Shooting from the hip at the last minute is no way to respond in
today's hot climate. We are now approaching "High Noon" on the issues
of morality and censorship, and the educational stakes are very large,
indeed. The public deserves responsible action by the schools on this
critical issue.

Scott D. Thomson is executive director of the National Association of
Secondary School Principals in Reston, Va.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.